States and Diasporas in Fragile Regimes

Chapter 8 revisits the research questions laid out in Chapter 1 and provides a comparative overview of the feedback loops driving state–migrant relations through the first decade of the twenty-first century. It treats these loops as integrated systems that have produced unstable equilibrium in the Turkish case, punctuated equilibrium in the Philippine case, and stable equilibria in the Dominican and Mexican cases. It then explores how these systems are being affected—and in some cases disrupted—by current regime crises in all four countries. The chapter concludes with a few thoughts about the role of migrants in democracy-building and avenues for future research.

Mobilizing Diaspora in Turkey and the Dominican Republic

Chapter 5 compares the cases of Turkey and the Dominican Republic, both of which have above-average turnout in homeland elections by their citizens abroad. In each case, the prior “export” of domestic politics under authoritarian rule sparked the transnationalization of political parties and created incentives for political leaders to court migrants as an electoral constituency. As a result, diaspora-making became a mobilizing project aimed at cultivating partisan loyalties. The chapter also reveals two key differences between these cases. First, the Turkish state has pursued more heterogenous goals with a wider range of policy instruments, including both state-based and party-based mechanisms of outreach. Second, Turkey’s contested identity politics lend more resonance to nationalist appeals to migrant loyalty while sparking counter-narratives. These differences help explain why extraterritorial turnout is so much higher in Turkey than in the Dominican Republic.

Pathways to Extraterritorial Voting

Chapter 4 focuses on extraterritorial voting as the most formalized channel of migrant engagement in politics back home. After a brief history of voting from abroad in Turkey, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and the Philippines, it introduces three competing models for explaining voter turnout: (1) a resource model based on migrant profiles; (2) an institutional model that focuses on electoral rules; and (3) a mobilization model that highlights party outreach. Combining data from the four cases with the results of large-n quantitative analysis developed elsewhere, the chapter argues that variations in turnout cannot be explained just by migrant profiles or institutional conditions but must also take into account extraterritorial mobilization by homeland parties. It concludes that the extent and nature of this mobilization are directly and integrally linked to the objectives and strategies of states engaged in diaspora-making.

Contexts of Exit and Reception

Chapter 3 lays the groundwork for the comparative analysis by describing the specific contexts of exit and reception for migrants from Turkey, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and the Philippines. For contexts of exit, it pays particular attention to how political regimes and economic development policies have contributed to migration since each country’s first migratory wave. For contexts of reception, it identifies the relevant host countries for each case and then shows how their immigration laws, labor markets, and public opinion have affected the composition and experiences of migrants living within their borders. The chapter concludes with a picture of the legal, socioeconomic, and geographical profiles of migrants from each of the four countries.

Diasporas, States, and Loyalty

Chapter 2 lays out the book’s theoretical framework. It begins by defining a diaspora as any group living outside its real or imagined homeland that has been constructed as belonging to that homeland. It argues that states often try to extend their authority beyond territorial borders by constructing migrants as diasporas and cultivating their loyalty. It discusses the menu of objectives, tools, and strategies from which states choose when deciding why and how to do so. It then examines how migrants respond, arguing that they may either reinforce or resist the state’s incorporation project and thereby alter the state themselves.

Migration and Homeland Politics

Chapter 1 introduces the main research questions in this book: (1) Under what conditions and in what ways do states alter the boundaries of political membership to reach out to migrants and thereby “make” diasporas? (2) How do these migrants respond? (3) To what extent does their response, in turn, transform the state? It begins with a discussion of how global economic restructuring and political regime change have reshaped the contours of migrant-homeland engagement. It then lays out the main research questions and discusses the case selection and methodology. It also specifies the causal feedback loops driving state–migrant relations. The chapter concludes with a brief overview of the remaining chapters in the book.

Diasporas as Agents That Sometimes Make States

Chapter 7 links patterns of diaspora-making to repertoires of migrant engagement and the extent to which they reinforce or challenge the state’s narratives and agendas. With a few notable exceptions, it finds that Dominicans and Mexicans are more likely to follow the lead of homeland authorities, which translates into partisan mobilization in the Dominican Republic and nonelectoral engagement in Mexico. By contrast, Turkish and Filipino migrants are more likely to challenge the state’s diaspora-making projects, although for different reasons. In the Turkish case, migrants from minority groups not only vote from abroad but also engage in counter-mobilizations outside the electoral arena. In the Philippine case, migrant organizations regularly challenge the depoliticizing discourse of the state by forming their own political parties and, like their Turkish counterparts, using the nonelectoral arena to advocate for change.

Depoliticizing Diaspora in Mexico and the Philippines

Chapter 6 compares the cases of Mexico and the Philippines, both of which have below-average turnout in homeland elections by their citizens abroad. In each case, the prevalence of economic objectives has interacted with weakly transnationalized parties to encourage political leaders to depoliticize their diasporas. The chapter also identifies some critical differences between the two cases. First, diaspora-making in the Philippines has been both more proactive and less unifying than in Mexico because of the distinction between permanent settlers, mostly in the United States, and temporary workers on state-regulated contracts. Second, the administrative tentacles of the Philippine state have more thoroughly penetrated extraterritorial spaces, making it less reliant on the disciplinary function of loyalty but also more likely to become a target of migrant claims-making. These differences help explain why extraterritorial turnout in the Philippines, while still very low, is somewhat higher than in Mexico.